Church Singing Art Masters of the “Reigning City of Moscow” in the 16Th — 17Th Centuries*

Church singing art masters of the “reIgning city of Moscow” in the 16th — 17th centuries*

N. P. Parfentjev, South Ural State University, Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation, [email protected]

Except the well-known raspevschik (chanting master) Feodor Krestjanin (his name in the sources always stands out) other masters associated with church-singing art of the Moscow School in the 16th – 17th centuries earned the recognition during their lifetime. The author of article focuses on the work of these “second position” chanting masters in the period of the highest development of the author’s creativity. Keywords: Old Russian church chanting art, author’s creativity, tsar’s singing diaki (choristers), Feodor Krestjanin, Ivan Nos, Deacon Foma (Filaret), Login Shishelov, Christopher, Luka Ivanov.

Moscow masters of singing art (the 16th — of the most significant monasteries of Russia — we 17th centuries) who were already recognized by came across some data concerning the activities of a the contemporaries were usually closely connected certain “young” monastery servant Ivan Nos. Most either with the tsar’s or the patriarch’s courts as far probably, the future renowned master of singing and as they were employed as the court singers, krestovye this monastery worker is one and the same man. diaki, the clergymen of court churches. Other masters, The Iosifo-Volokalamsky Monastery was founded sometimes also renowned and outstanding ones, were in 1479 within easy reach of Moscow. In the short serving at the monasteries and churches of Moscow. course of time it became a centre of great importance Among all masters there were those who went from in terms of political and cultural life of Russia. The different places. The service in the capital demanded monastery scribes — copyists, writers — were of great quick acquisition of regional traditions of singing. value, as well [for example: 12]. Following the precepts Thus, they became the representatives of the Moscow of Reverend Iosif (Sanin), the founder, ideologist and school of singing. So there was a formation of special defender of the monastery possession, the monks had creative direction, called today the Moscow School in a large farm with numerous villages and trades. The ancient Russian chanting music. monastic elders were in charge of different fields of It was already mentioned that only thanks to activities, but there was a need for some supervisors, Feodor Krestjanin’s popularity and recognition among educated people outside the monastery. As a rule the contemporaries and his pupils there some of his they were called “monastery servants” (or monastery works and some facts from the biography of this re- workers), at times — “stewards”. They were employed nowned master were preserved [14; 19; 20]. There is for the definite period of time after which they were even less information about the life and art of other sent to a different place. masters. Thus, on November, 26, 1548, the monastery trea- Feodor Krestjanin’s companion — Ivan Nos — surer Lavrenty “was giving the keys” to the servants also started his career at the tsar’s court. The historical including Ivan Nos — “to the village Otchischevo to document “The Introduction, where and since when Ivan Nos — key, as for Vasily, for icon-painter, St. the eight-mode (octophonic) singing was established Nicholas Day period vernal” [49, fol. 28]. This record in Russia” says that “in Novgorod the Great there were is the first mention of Ivan Nos in the monastery docu- old masters — Savva Rogov and his brother Vasily”. ments. It is interestingly enough that Ivan Nos replaced Their two pupils became brilliant choir leaders: “Ioann a representative of the artistic profession — an icon- Nos and the priest Feodor Krestyanin were working in painter. In April, 1549, Ivan Nos, among others, was the residence of the tsar Ivan the Terrible in Alexan- given a payment — 40 altyn (1,2 roubles). Later he drova Sloboda”. The third pupil — Stephan Golysh — was sent to different settlements (Ivanovskoe, Luk- at the same time was “walking around the towns and ovnikovo, Novoe). Occasionally he got payments for teaching pupils” [64, fol. 201—201v]. We have no the serving people — yard cleaners or stokers [49, fol. information where Ivan Nos comes from, but the ini- 28v, 64, 79v, 103, 139v). Apparently, Ivan Nos’ mon- tial period of his singing career was surely connected astery service brought good profit 1 . The documents of with Novgorod the Great and Savva Rogov’s singing the Iosifo-Volokalamsky Monastery mention the name school, where the future master was grasping the pro- of Ivan Nos for the last time in February, 1557, when fessional subtleties of the chanting art. his service period was over and another supervisor The information about Ivan Nos is very scarce. was appointed for the settlement Novoe [49, fol. 150]. Apparently, right after finishing his education at Sav- In further monastery documents there were found no va Rogov’s school he was also “walking around the references to Ivan Nos. The inventory of the monastery towns” searching for some job (of a teacher or some library contains the only record concerning Ivan Nos — other job that a literate person could perform). In the his giving the singing book “Ermoloy” (Heirmologion) archives of the Iosifo-Volokalamsky Monastery — one as a present [12, p. 89] (it is not clear when it happened

* Work is executed at financial supported by the Rus- 1 Note that monetary contributions of monastic servants sian Humanitarian Scientific Fund (РГНФ), project for recording them in synodic were huge sums — 90— № 13-04-00077. 100 roubles. [25, fol. 21, 101 etc.].

2015, т. 15, № 3 91 Искусствоведение и культурология

Alexandrova Sloboda. Engraving of the 16th century as far as the earlier record is dated 1545). The following authorship marked the end of the 16th — the beginning records of Ivan Nos’ activities concern the time of his of the 17th centuries. One more reason consists in staying in Alexandrova Sloboda together with Feodor the fact that Ivan Nos had no pupils who, as a rule, Krestjanin. were the first to put down the interpretations of their “The Introduction” states that “Ivan Nos and teachers; after that the chants were copied and spread priest Feodor Krestjanin were staying with the tsar Ivan in different collections. the Terrible in his favourite settlement Alexandrova The activities of one more connoisseur of singing Sloboda” [64, fol. 201v]. We cannot say for sure whether art are also connected with the tsar’s court. They can Ivan Nos was employed before Feodor Krestjanin or serve an example of the interconnection between the not. Judging by the further documents Ivan Nos was court and monastery chanting masters as well as the employed as the tsar’s krestovy diak to perform singing evidence of close link that existed among the singing and other functions during the “domestic prayer” of centres of different regions. At the tsar Ivan the Ter- the tsar in his place or in the Krestovaya Chamber. rible court this master was known as Deacon Foma The staff list of the krestovye diaki dated (Thomas). March, 20, 1573 contains only one full name (with In order to serve at the tsar’s court Foma had to the patronymic and surname-nickname) of the nine demonstrate not only outstanding natural abilities but mentioned singers — Ivan Yurjev son Nos [2, p. also extensive knowledge in the field of the singing art. 35]. The tsar Ivan gave him his money payment (10 Unfortunately, the data about the early period of his roubles) and cloth payment (48 altyn). Among his life are lost. The first records inform that “he was stay- partners Ivan Nos held the fourth place and got the ing in Alexandrova Sloboda together with the tsar Ivan third biggest payment. The fact that his name was the Terrible” and served at the tsar’s Pokrovsky Ca- written with the patronymic undoubtedly points at his thedral [11, p. 252]. This period marks the second half great authority at the court. Probably, Ivan Nos started of the 1560-s. At that time Feodor Krestjanin served to serve earlier than Feodor Krestjanin and was a bit in the Sloboda as a court priest. Foma could not only older than him. hear the singing of this outstanding didascalos but also From “The Introduction” we know that while could learn a lot. staying in the Sloboda he created chants for the Since the end of the 1560-s Foma who took the Triodion as well as numerous sticherons and monastic vow under the name of Filaret stayed at the doxastikons in honor of many saints, and theotokions monastery of the Trinity and St. Sergius. Thanks to his of Menaia [64, fol. 202]. These are the chants form great knowledge of the singing art he was promoted the two types of Sticheraria — Lenten and Holyday. the choir leader; since the late 1570-s Filaret served After the canonization councils of the 1540-s and The as ustavshchik (head of choir) for more than 40 years Stoglav (The Hundred Chapters), 1551, the singing [9, p. 63). During 40 years of his serving and teach- masters worked at creating services or separate chants ing he undoubtedly shared all his experience, which he in honour of “the new miracle-workers”. Ivan Nos received while singing at the tsar’s court, and enriched also contributed to this work. Unfortunately, there the monastery traditions. were found no works marked with his name among Among the Moscow chanting masters closely con- the chant manuscripts. Apparently, they were created nected with the tsar’s court there was the Anonymous before the 1570—1580-s and enlarged the fund of Diak whose records of the late 16th — early 17th centu- anonymous works. The interest to the chants of ries containing the works of various authors, copybooks

92 Вестник ЮУрГУ. Серия «Социально-гуманитарные науки» Church singing art masters of the “reigning city N. P. Parfentjev of Moscow” in the 16th — 17th centuries with his own chants are of great interest 1 . He was an same time being an artistic person, the Anonymous experienced assistant in the process of training the Diak digresses from the mainstream version allowing tsar’s singing diaki (choristers) conducted by Feodor some intonation variability. In some cases he demon- Krestjanin [18, 23]. strates his own art: “The master Krestjanin sang it… First of all, the Anonymous Diak was busy sim- Mine is in a sufficient interpretation” (about variants plifying the complicated variants of chants and prac- of recording the same chant); “The Master sang in two, ticing them on the eve of important church services. It so the mastery is that along the line… It is better this was done for those who could not master the singing way…” (refers to separate interpretations of the same of difficult neumes and formulae especially for young formula); “The Master sang it by means of neumes, singers. This work was conducted under the master’s look at my variant” (about the line of the same chant) supervision and was sometimes paid by the singers. [31, fol. 4v; 32, fol. 1] etc. This subtle variability In the manuscripts the Anonymous Diak marked it in speaks for the vibrant breathing of the singing practice the following way: “For the Demesvenny chant two and reflects the development of the musical theoretical grivnas; “without fitas — two altyns, with fitas — thought in the framework of Feodor Krestjanin’s tradi- 1 grivna”; “for the mastery — two altyns; “for the tion involved in the upbringing of the tsar’s singing songs of praise — 4 den’gas, for the whole service — diaki choir and the formation of new artistic principles 1 grivna”, etc. [29, fol. 1v; 31, fol. 2, 3; 32, fol. 1v]. of the masters closely connected with the tsar’s court. The Anonymous Diak’s records demonstrate his The artistic nature of the Anonymous Diak professional approach to this business. He mentions, can be vividly seen in his interpretations of separate for example, that dots in the text stand for line bor- complicated neumes, formulae or lines of the chants, ders, commas — “neume rest” (short break for taking which were given in parallel with other variants and a breath); or clarifies how the neumatic sign “light were marked by the pronouns “I”, “mine”, “my” etc arrow with cross and cloud” should be performed in [26, fol. 161v, 362, 365v; 31, fol. 4, 4v; 32, fol. 1v, 2; some chant following Feodor Krestjanin’s mastery and 34; etc.]. There can be found complete singing works it should be performed “without the cloud” in Anon- belonging to this master, as well. Thus, the chant the- ymous Diak’s interpretation [32, fol. 1]. One more otokion “Podo krovo tvoi Vladychitse” (“Подо крово time he refers to Feodor Krestjanin’s experience and твои Владычице”) from the Octoechos is marked “My gives the following advice: “You should preserve this neume interpretation” [28]. The text of the Octoechos mastery during the whole chant”; “Krestjanin taught really contains the same theotokion, which has for- to sing it this way: quickly”; “The master sang it this mulas (named fita and popevka) in encrypted tracings way… sing it steadily”; “The master was singing the without explanations-interpretations [27, fol. 79— whole chant in the fourth mode, the end — the eighth 79v]. One can also mention the Diak’s interpretations mode” [27, fol. 58, 66; 31, fol. 4v; 34]. for the chant theotokion “Raduisya solnechny oblache” These examples prove that the Anonymous (“Радуйся солнечный облаче” — “my neume”), for Diak carefully recorded everything concerning Fe- the Easter Hymn to the Theotokos “Svetisya, svetisya odor Krestjanin’s art. All the manuscripts contain his Noviy Ierusalime” (“Светися, светися, новый Иеру- remarks: “The master sang it this way”, “It was per- салиме” — “mine is in a sufficient interpretation”), formed by Krestjanin”, “The master sang the neume for two Glorifications of the Virgin (“mine”, “Putniy notation”, and “Krestjanin sang it for pupils” etc. At style, my same”) and for the verse from solemn part times the Diak marked where from he received this of Matins — the polieley “Khvalite imya Gospodne” record, for example: “Year 7113 (1605), March, 15, (“Хвалите имя господне” — “I made changes in 5th week of the Lent, Friday — Krestjanin’s inter- comparison with this version in accordance with the pretation taken from Iosif who took it from Ofonya practice of chanting”) [29, fol. 1v; 32, fol. 1; 34; 35]. Vorogov” [35]. Doubting the authenticity of Krestja- The Anonymous Diak’s records mention the cre- nin’s variant he specified it and possible after verifica- ative activities of the following masters of church sing- tion from the master himself marked in the following ing art — Feodor and Ivan, whose names were well- way: “Written — Year 7112 (1603), September, 13, known at the tsar’s court and who were Feodor Krest- not Krestjanin’s interpretation, taken from Kuz’ma, janin’s sons (It is worth mentioning that their names the priest’s son, Basmannikov”; “In some interpreta- coincide with those of Ivan the Terrible’s sons). tions it is done this way, unlike to Krestjanin’s variant” The Anonymous Diak assuming that the outstand- [27, fol. 73; 33, fol. 1v]. The Diak was interested in ing master’s sons had the same mastery of the singing the master’s attitude to other existing interpretations: art wanted to get their works. Sometimes, the obtained “I asked Krestjanin in year 7111 (1603) and he said: I manuscripts were not authentic. Thus, in one of his do not sing “Pesn’ vsyaku dukhovnu” (“Песнь всяку manuscripts the Anonymous Diak told a story how a cer- духовну”) as worldly variant” [31, fol. 4v]. The fol- tain Stepan from Kazan was performing a heirmos with lowing is Song itself. Feodor Krestjanin and later copied service on the church Thus, in his remarks to the singing records the holiday, penitential verses and other works for him. Anonymous Diak serves Feodor Krestyanin’s pupil During this work Krestjanin’s son Feodor asked Stepan who deeply respects his “teacher” or “master” and is to copy his own Fitnik (collection of explanations the guided by the texts edited under his direction. At the very encrypted sophisticated formulas — “fita”). Stepan 1 S. G. Zvereva believes that this diak was Ivan Demidov secretly copied it for himself as well. This record edited Zherdev (Zherdin). However, in addition that the singer has on July, 15, 1602, was copied for the tsar’s singing diaki. served in the 1st stanitsa (group) of tsar’s choir, no evidence However, in the Anonymous Diak’s opinion, incorrect is given [69, p. 104]. interpretations of the formulae were done not by Feodor,

2015, т. 15, № 3 93 Искусствоведение и культурология Krestjanin’s son. Stepan “told a lie that it was Feodor’s священная”), “Mironositsy zheny” (“ Мироносицы interpretation” [30, fol. 1v—2] 1 . жены”) and some other chants, are recorded by means The most important thing here is the fact that “young of the Putevoy style notation [40]. Feodor”, like his father, was known as a master of for- The activities of the masters connected with the mula interpretations. The mastery of his art led to the tsar’s court and the court choir of the singing diaki be- creation of his own chanting interpretations. In fact, in yond all doubt exerted a significant influence on the de- the Diak’s manuscript there is a chant devoted to three velopment of the common traditions and common space saints — the theotokion “Pokrovo tvoi Prechistaya” of the Moscow singing. This space embraced not only (“Покрово твои Пречистая”) — and accompanied by the churches and monasteries located in Moscow. The the remark: “This text is taken from Krestjanin’s chant Russian tsars accompanied by their choir also frequently book. The neume notation is done by his son Feodor, visited various festive ceremonies in the neighbouring interpreted and explained by son himself. Written in churches and cloisters. During such church ceremonies 7115 (1607) on March, 19. Edited here” [30, fol. 8]. the singers performed the chants together with the local Resorting to the line of the chant the Anonymous choir brothers. From time to time the people connected Diak marked: “Feodor the son usually sang it this way”, with the singing service at the court happened to be or “Ivan the son sang it this way”. Further on the line among these choir brothers (e. g. the deacon Foma). is supplied with remarks: “The master sang it at his Thus, there was a close interconnection between the master and said so”, etc. [36]. Thus, the sources prove singing centres of Moscow and its neighbourhoods the existence of Feodor Krestjanin’s two sons who that resulted in the maintaining of common traditions professionally dealt with the art of chanting. in regional singing schools. Most probably “young” Feodor was Feodor Krest- As a rule the framework of such schools marked janin oldest son. In 1584—1585 he was serving as a the works of large monasteries that could afford the deacon at the tsar’s Blagoveshensky Cathedral, where choirs, the best heads (leaders) of the choir and senior Feodor Krestjanin himself served as a priest. In January choristers. These masters coming from different regions 1585 the tsar Feodor Ioannovich gave young Feodor of the country often introduced the new musical some cloth for his performing “Mnogoletiya” (The intonation material (first of all concerning the formula wishes for long life) at Christmas and Epiphany [5, or lines interpretation). Thus special monastery chants р. 197]. Krestjanin’s second son — Ivan Fedorov the were born. First they were included in the singing books priest’s son — in 1584—1585 served in the 6th stanitsa and later they became widespread among the profes- (group) of the tsar’s choir among the adolescent singing sional musicians. diaki. In this choir he served till 1635 taking part in One of the Moscow monasteries connected with the chant performances during the official ceremonies, the names of outstanding masters and works of old for example, during Vasily Shuisky’s and Mikhail singing art was the Kremlin Chudov Monastery. The Romanov’s coronations, Patriarch Filaret’s ordination results of its singing masters’ activities are worth men- or other joyous events of the tsar’s family — wedding tioning here as well. Let us give a number of examples. ceremony, christening ceremony of crown princes, etc. In the manuscript of the turn 16th—17th centuries we Since 1617 the master’s second son is mentioned among come across “a new interpretation” (“they sing this the singers who were teaching “small singing diaki” way in Chudov now”) of the sticherons: “Blazhimo [17, р. 332—333]. tya” (“Блажимо тя”), “Dostoino est’ blazhiti tya” There was one more chanting master, a repre- (“Достойно есть блажити тя”), “Rodi vesi pesn’mi” sentative of the Moscow singing school, connected (“Роди веси песньми”) [7]. It should be noted that with the tsar’s court. His works are fixed in the early at the turn of the centuries the monastery had two 17th century manuscripts of the library for the tsar’s outstanding masters — the choir head Login Shish- singing diaki with the following remarks: “Mikhailov elov (1585—1610) and the choir brother Christopher interpretation”, “Mikhail’s variant”. This proves the (1586—1601). It is possible that the above-mentioned fact that master Mikhail was a well-known personality. innovations are connected with these names. Probably he served as a singing diak or in the clergy of We have already mentioned Login Shishelov’s court churches 2 . As all other singing masters Mikhail name [for example: 22]. He came into the history of contributed greatly to the interpretation process of old-Russian church singing as an outstanding chanter, some chants. For example, among the “lines from the singing master and choir leader in the monastery of the Epiphany heirmoses” we come across “Mikhailov ver- Trinity and St. Sergius, though he spent a considerable sion”; in another case before the line there is a remark: part of his life in Moscow, in the Chudov monastery. “taken from Eremey who said that it is Mikhail’s inter- The master was born in the northern city of Ustug pretation” [30, fol. 3v; 39]. There were also preserved the Great; there is a cinnabar record in one of the Trinity the complete works of this master, which prove that he books made at the times when Login was well known had a good command of the Putevoy style chanting. in the monastery. This record presents a remark op- Thus, his sticheron for the 6th mode in Virgin Mary’s posite monk Tikhon’s name (who died in 1594/95); it honour “Sveto prevechnyi” (“Свето превечныи”) and is written that the monk “comes from Ustug and he is Easter sticherons “Paskha svyaschennaya” (“Пасха father of choirmaster Login” [3, р. 146]. Thus we get to 1 We know that Feodor Krestjanin’s Fitnik was existed, but know that the monastery of the Trinity and St. Sergius in this case we are talking about Fitnik of his son Feodor. (Troitse-Sergiev) was the residence of the master’s 2 The complete lists of courtiers’ singers and clergymen father and Ustug the Great was the birthplace of both of the 16th — the first quarter of the 17th centuries are not monks. Login’s surname is mentioned in the inventory preserved. of the Troitse-Sergiev Monastery books (was drawn

94 Вестник ЮУрГУ. Серия «Социально-гуманитарные науки» Church singing art masters of the “reigning city N. P. Parfentjev of Moscow” in the 16th — 17th centuries up 1642): “The written and presented collection of During the first years of staying in the monastery sticherons belongs to Login, named Shishelovskoy”. Login copied a large Sticheraria (collection of [3, р. 146). The name “Shishelovskoy” refers here to sticherons) for himself and marked it at the end that the collection of sticherons 1 . Consequently, the master’s it took him about a year to write this book. This book surname was Shishelov (Шишелов). This surname was has a very modest design, no decorations but it has frequently met among serving people in the 16th century been attracting the researchers’ attention for several [for example: 57, р. 179, 190]. The musical theoretical centuries. This collection of sticherons was of great work of the 17th century “Skazanie o zarembah” men- interest to us because of the two singing cycles in tions Login’s nickname — “Korova” (“Cow”) 2 . the Putevoy style chanting which were included by Login Shishelov’s young years fell on the time Login Shishelov with his mark of Ivan the Terrible’s of Ivan the Terrible’s oprichnina. We know nothing authorship [54, fol. 98, 100v, 222v]. about the reasons why he left Ustug and took monastic Login’s interest to the author’s works was vows. The earliest documentary sources mention him growing. He could perform up to 10 and more different in 1585/86 in the cash receipts and payments book of variants of the same text. Login created his own chants the Chudov monastery. Among different expenses there as well. All this made him a famous master and a great were written some payments — e.g. monthly monetary authority. payment for the choir brothers and choirmasters. All in Many educated monks copied the books in the all there were four choirmasters in the Chudov monas- monastery. The Chudov Monastery Elders also worked tery, but Login is mentioned nowhere in the beginning as editors at the Moscow Printing House preparing the of the year (September or October). Only on December, books for publishing. Login Shishelov was among 3, 1585 Login from Ustug gets the November payment them in the early 17th century. in the amount of 1 grivna (0,1 rouble) instead of the The master had to prepare the first Russian edition choirmaster Iona Protopopov [41, fol. 112v]. Thus, of the Church Charter (Typicon): “With the help of God Login Shishelov started to serve as a golovstik (head of the beam of enlightenment began to shine in the heart of choir) of the Chudov monastery since November 1585. the wise tsar and grand prince Vasily Ivanovich… about Apparently, he appeared here at this very time. He was the corrections of the holy writings… with the bless- called “Login from Ustug”. Further on he regularly ing of the Moscow patriarch Ermoghen… according to received his payment [41, fol. 126v, 143v, 157, 178v, the metropolitans’, archbishops’, and all holy people’s 189, 198, 222] 3 . advice” 4 .Here one should pay attention to the highest It was rather difficult to settle down in the Chu- sanction that Login received starting his work. He had dov monastery inside the Moscow Kremlin being a to do the following. Like many other books, which were golovshik. Login must have stayed in Moscow for copied for centuries, the Church Charter was translated some time first and became famous as a singer-cler- from Greek to Slavic with some omissions and mistakes gyman with outstanding vocal abilities (later they will [13, р. 312]. Login’s task was to analyze different ver- write about him that he “was a singer with a God-given sions of the Charter and to complete those omissions talent: his voice was beautiful, light and powerful”) and correct the mistakes. and as a connoisseur of the church singing as well. Having no experience of such kind of editing In the monastery his art and knowledge were to get work Login, first of all, was afraid to omit or overlook perfected. It is a well-known fact that on holidays the something. His text was collected from various texts best singers from Moscow gathered here, e.g. the tsar’s of the Typicon — Jerusalem, Holy Mountains, Studit, and the patriarch’s choirs took part in festive church Holy Elders and others. The major part of the book was ceremonies together with the choir brothers. Due to devoted to the information about the Slavic-Russian this fact, the singing practice must have been at the saints services, which made the Charter look like an highest level in the monastery. Apparently, that was authentic Russian book, giving “national Russian the reason why musically talented Login was appoint- direction” and “local color”. It then remained in its ed here. Since June 1586 one more monk — Christo- other publications almost throughout 17th century [13, pher (Khristophor) — was serving in the monastery р. 317]. However, Login included in his book a lot as a singer [41, fol. 210v]; he is the future author of of irrelevant and inconsistent information. There were the singing art treatise — “The Key to the Neumes” some errors, misleading facts, wrong descriptions (“Ключ знаменной”, 1604) [10]. of the rites and discrepancies in the prayers [13, р. 313, 316]. All this was a result of earlier 1 The marks of monastic librarians: Lupandinskoy, Lopo- inconsistence of the book. Login himself wrote in the tukhinskoy, Zuevskoy etc. are often found in the manuscript introduction: “With love and generosity we began this collections. These designations of the books are derived work and finished it with honest and great results” from the names, surnames or nicknames of presenters. Simi- [13, р. 314]. lar recordings were sometimes included in the inventory of The Charter, edited by Login Shishelov, was pub- the monastic libraries. lished by the Moscow Printing House in 1610. Anisim 2 “Skazanie” informs everyday nicknames of outstanding Radishevsky performed the technical part of this work chanting masters and teachers (didaskaloi) by which they (he became famous in 1606, when the edition of the were known among professional chanters [8, fol. 376v— 377]. Gospel with lace engravings was published). In spite 3 Unfortunately, except book of 1585/86, other similar of all the drawbacks the first edition of the Charter was documents of the Chudov monastery have not been preserved. Therefore, to establish any of the facts connected 4 From the preface to the Church Charter 1610. Cited in: with the stay of Login in this monastery is not possible. 13, р. 311—312.

2015, т. 15, № 3 95 Искусствоведение и культурология wide spread in Russian eparchies till February, 1633, deystvo”; to the singing diaki and podiaki of Ryazan- when the second edition was published 1 . sky, Kolomensky and Vologodsky church hierarchs; After publishing the Charter in 1610 Login’s to the singing (krestovye) diaki of some private choirs activities as an editor of the Moscow Printing House of B. Godunov and D. Godunov, A. Schelkalov and came to a close. The same year he left the Chudov V. Schelkalov; to the choirmasters and choir broth- Monastery and Moscow occupied by the Poles (in ers of the Chudov monastery [41, fol. 121v—123]. September) and settled down till his death in the The Chudov monastery singers could not only hear Troitse-Serguiev Monastery where his father used to the tsar’s and the metropolitan’s choirs but also take be a monk. part in their holiday ceremonies during which the tsars The monk Christopher who appeared in the Chu- and metropolitans were present. The mastery of those dov monastery later than Login Shishelov since June choirmasters and choir brothers, no doubt, equaled that 1586 was employed as a choir brother with the pay- one of the court singers. It was they who kept the mon- ment 2 altyn and ½ den’ga (6,25 kopecks) per month astery singing traditions. [41, fol. 210v, 222v]. Besides his singing duties he was The available documents of the period 1585— actively involved in the work of the famous scripto- 1586 mention the names of these masters and de- rium section of the monastery, mastering not only the scribe the structure of the monastery choir [41, art of singing but also the art of book writing. fol. 78v—79, 103, 112v—113, 126—127v, 143v—144, Christopher was born in Moscow: in one of the 157 etc.]. Thus, the golovshiks (heads of choir) were records in the Gospel he noted that he is a Musco- the following: Iona Klyk, Ioasaf Luzheny and Feoktist. vite. He took the monastic vows far from the capital, One more golovshik, Iona Protopopov, was replaced though, in the Kyryllo-Belozersky Monastery [10, by Login Shishelov from Ustug. Consequently, there р. 193]. Having become a monk, he decided to leave were no more than four golovshiks at one time — two the northern cloister and came back to Moscow. for each of the monastery churches: the Archangel During his staying in the Chudov monastery Michael Church of Miracle and the Church of Prelate Christopher took part in writing significant books, Aleksy. The choir brothers were the following: Mark e. g. the Menaia in 1600. The researchers consider his Baskov, Serapion the Old, Filaret and Christopher. handwriting as one of the best handwritings among the This staff was regularly (each 2—3 months) changed Chudov monastery masters [10, р. 203]. At the same by Elisey, Niphont Bezzuby (Toothless), Epiphan and time there is no available chant book so far copied by Pimen Kazanets (from Kazan). The singing duties Christopher during his staying in Moscow. Apparently, were performed by Ferapont, Kyrill and Tikhon. They his knowledge of singing art at that time corresponded performed duties replacing each other. All in all there to the requirements of the singing practice of the mon- were 5—6 choir brothers from the professional mas- astery choir. But it was here, in the atmosphere of high ters. Thus, in one choir there were no more than 2— art, where the development of the future outstanding 3 singers including the golovshik. During the ordinary master of old-Russian music took place. The short pe- church services there also were some monks who were riod of his work at “The Key to the Neumes” (1604) able to perform the chants together with the profes- after he left the Chudov monastery only proves it. sional masters. During holiday services they were to Christopher’s departure to the Kyryllo-Belozer- perform together with the most well known choirs of sky Monastery took place nearly 1601. In 1600 he was Russia. involved in the copying of the Chudov’s the Menaia; The artistic traditions formed by professional his next book — the chanting Sticheraria (collection singing masters such as Login and Christopher contin- of sticherons) — was finished in 1602 in Kyrillov [6; ued their development in the Chudov monastery. The 10, p. 194 etc.]. chants “Nyne sily nebesnye” (“Ныне силы небес- The above-mentioned Login Shishelov and Chris- ные”) and “Vozbrannoi voevode” (“Возбранной вое- topher connected with the Chudov school of church воде”) [55, fol. 168, 175v] as well as the prokeimenon singing became outstanding masters. There were other “Da ispravitsya molitva moya” (“Да исправится мо- outstanding masters in the Chudov monastery. We литва моя”) and the cherubic hymn “Izhe kheruvimy” know that the monastery attracted the best Moscow (“Иже херувимы”) [63, fol. 197, 203v] were wide singers on holidays (as well as others who were stay- spread in the chant books of the late 17th century in the ing in Moscow at that time). For example, on Decem- Chudov variant. Throughout two centuries the Chudov ber, 27, 1585 the monastery treasury gave money to monastery remained one of the leading Moscow cen- the singers (“slavlenshiks”) who came to glorify the tres of church singing art. Lord at Christmas: e.g. to the tsar’s singing diaki; to The 17th century was not marked by such great the two stanitsas (groups) of diaki and one stanitsa of masters of Moscow school singing art as the previ- podiaki from the metropolitan’s choir as well as to the ous century was. It can be explained by a number three podiaki who were performing in the “Peschnoe of reasons. The introduction of different chants with melismatic elements, especially the extended drawling 1 With the release of the new edition of the Charter Pa- Great and Putevoy style chanting, considerably length- triarch Filaret in the summer of 1633 ordered to collect ened the duration of the divine services. The “mnogo- and burn all copies of 1610, which allegedly Login printed without the blessing of the Patriarch and the Cathedral [1, glasie” (kind of polyphony when different parts of the р. 337—338]. Recall that in the Preface to the Charter of service were performed simultaneously) was a way 1610 Login wrote that he had received such a blessing. But out in this situation; it resulted, though, in the creation probably in a “time of troubles”, it was formal, without con- of anti-mnogoglasie polemical writings directed not sideration of the results of editorial work only against the most polyphony, but also against the

96 Вестник ЮУрГУ. Серия «Социально-гуманитарные науки» Church singing art masters of the “reigning city N. P. Parfentjev of Moscow” in the 16th — 17th centuries creation of chanting variants. In the 17th century the art. The mention of Luka Ivanov’s name in the first amount of such works was on the increase. The univer- row of “the Russian philosophers” who dealt with sal negative attitude to the “multi-chanting” variants the improvement of the old notation system points at led to the reduction of author’s creative works. his authority in this field. He might have imparted his On the other hand, the final stage in the formation knowledge to his son who chose the career of a priest of the Russian state contributed to the integration of as well. Since 1649/50 Luka Ivanov’s son Nazarey culture and self-awareness of regional schools, whose served in the church of Nikola Yavlensky as a priest masters revealed their individual artistic principles. [48, fol. 189]. The new revival of chant creating in the second half Like other masters Luka Ivanov created his own of the 16th — the beginning of the 17th centuries was musical interpretations of some lines of the chants (es- followed by the period of reflection. First of all, the pecially, if they had “taynozamknenny” (encrypted) neume notation needed improvement and unification. neume formulae). In one musical reference book of the Some masters independently started to search for the 17th century we can find the variant marked by “Luka’s ways of this improvement. It resulted in the creation of interpretation” [8, fol. 424]. Another manuscript con- the so called “okozritel’nye pometky” (special marks) tains his interpretation of the upper line (for the higher which marked the more accurate pitch of the neumatic voice) of the 8-mode chant from the Octoechos [67, notation signs, regulated the nuances of singing 1 . fol. 161]. This master also was the author of the dox- In fact, numerous manuscripts of the first half astikon “Preklonil esi glavu” (“Преклонил еси гла- 17th century contain these “pometky” (marks) above ву” — mark “Lukin rospev”) in the Great Chant style the neumes. Sometimes these were just letters (p, b, m for the Theophany [61]. etc.) which pointed at the melody nuances: steadily, fast, Master Luka Ivanov’s creative activities made him quietly etc., but more often there can be come across famous during his serving as a deacon in the church of those which are not present in the manuscripts of the Nikola Yavlensky. One of the chant collections of the 17th century (д, ω, св etc.) [for example: 42; 52; 56; 17th century proves it. This chant collection (manuscript 58—60; 65; 66] 2 . In the 1650—60-s a universal system book) is kept in the archives of the Yaroslavl region of marks was introduced, called “cinnabar signs” (or (GAYaO. Kol. rukop., Inv.1, №459/97). This collec- “Shaidurovskye” signs) 3 . tion contains a number of chant books (Heirmologion, However the manuscripts also give evidence of Obikhod (the Book of chants most frequently used in the fact that till the mid 17th century there were several the services), Octoechos and Collection of Lent Stich- systems of such marks. “Skazanie o zarembah”, writ- erons) and large cycles of everyday and festive chants ten in the second half of the 17th century, informs that in Virgin Mary’s honour. The manuscript has the own- “these marks were created by Russian philosophers af- er’s mark: “This book belongs to Yury, Leontyev son” ter the Lithuanian devastation during the Tsar Mikhail (fol. 1) and a later mark which states that on March, 1, Feodorovich’s reign”. The authors are also enumerated 1657 “the hierodeacon Lavrenty from the Yaroslavl’ here: first of all the MuscoviteL uka — the priest of the Tolgsky monastery (the Church of the Presentation of Nikolo-Yavlenskaya church at the Arbatskye Gates [8, the Holy Virgin in the Temple), who was staying at St. fol. 376—378]. His system of marks did not receive Nicolas the Miracle-Worker in Rubleny city, brought universal recognition, though his life and activities are this chant book “Sticherons” at the commemoration worth paying attention to. for his and his parents souls in the Yaroslavl’ Assump- The study of the 17th century archives really tion Cathedral of the Holy Virgin and local miracle- proves that there was Luka Ivanov in the church of workers, Princes Vassyly and Konstantin and left this Nikola Yavlensky behind the Arbatskye gates in the record hierodeacon Lavrenty himself ” (fol. 2—463). Streletskaya Sloboda. At the end of the 1620-s and This record about Lavrenty’s staying at St. Nicolas throughout the 1630-s he served as a deacon of this the Miracle-Worker in Rubleny city makes us come church [43; 44]. During the 1640-s Luka Ivanov was to the conclusion that the Moscow church of Nikola a priest of the same church [45; 48, fol. 84v]. Luka Yavlensky is meant here. The Prikaz scribes marked got his state payment — money for the cloth in the the location of this church as “near Bely Gorod” (White amount of 4 roubles. The church of Nikola Yavlensky city) or “in the Zemlyanoy Gorod” (Ground city). Ac- was one of the Moscow parish churches where the cording to the maps and plans of Moscow this church priests received the ruga — special payment from the was located near the Arbatskye gates which were outside tsar treasury. The church was built of stone to the order the Bely Gorod right in the Zemlyanoy one. It used to of the ruler and future tsar Boris Godunov in 1593 [68, be the Wooden Gorod (Wooden city) which after being p. 162]. Apparently the clergyman of the ruga church burnt by the Poles was fortified by the earthen wall had to possess great mastery in the church-singing (“Ground city”) and the stockade (“Rubleny (log) city”) in the 1630-s. According to the payment books of the 1 For example, tsar’s singing diaki trained by Feodor early 1640-s when Luka Ivanov became the priest of Krestjanin at the turn 16th — 17th centuries used such “mas- the Nikola Yavlensky Church his place of a deacon was ters’ special marks” [23]. 2 taken by a certain Leonty. In 1645 there was already a In this connection we point out the unique “Skazanie different deacon there [45—47]. Most probably, it was pometkam” 17th century which explains the meaning of these Leonty who took the monastic vow and got the new “masters’ marks”: г — громко (loud), д — держи (hold), 4 ω — опрокинь (overturn), з — завопи (scream), с — скоро name of Lavrenty . The Yaroslavl’ Tolgsky Vvedensky (quickly) and so on. [53]. 4 Recall that in the 17th century it became a tradition when 3 About the Novgorodian Ivan Shaydurov for example, accepted new monastic name had to begin with the same let- see. 15, p. 41—42. ter as the old worldly one.

2015, т. 15, № 3 97 Искусствоведение и культурология Monastery became the new employment of the hierodeacon. The above-mentioned book for some time be- longed to deacon Lavrenty’s son — Yury. Later it passed into the hands of a father-monk and was presented by him to the Yaroslavl’ Assumption Cathedral. The notes made by Lavrenty prove that he knew Luka Ivanov very well in the time when he was a deacon of the Nikola Yavlensky church (1630-s). After the Hir- mologion Lavrenty (in those years Leonty) wrote: “The hirmuses belong to Luka Ivanovich Tveritin, the deacon of the Moscow church of Nikola Yavlensky. Recorded from his interpretation” (fol. 62v). Before the collection of Lent sticherons he wrote: “The triodions belong to the deacon of the Moscow Nikola Yavlensky church Luka Ivanovich Tveritin. Recorded from his interpretation” (fol. 291). There are also other notes, e.g. after the book of church chants: “Father Superior Pamva’s Obihod is recorded from his variant” (fol. 192v) 1 ; before the Oc- toechos: “The Octoechos is interpreted by the Ussol’e masters” (fol. 193) 2 . All this proves that the manuscript was ordered and compiled from the copies of chant interpretations made in the 1630-s. Apparently, Leonty- Lavrenty himself ordered this book as he was closely watching the writing process. Lavrenty also prepared the copies and left his own remarks 3 . The above-mentioned records demonstrate Lavrenty’s great respect to the Moscow deacon Luka. He calls Luka “Ivanovich” which was used in the 17th “The heirmuses belong to Luka Ivanovich Tveritin, the deacon of the Moscow Nikola Yavlensky church. century only in reference to the high society (the tsar’s Recorded from his interpretation” family members, the boyars, other court dignitaries (GAYaO. Kol. rukop. Inv. 1. № 459 (97). Fol. 62v) and princes), but, apparently, the full patronymic was also admitted between educated people of the same While a deacon Luka dealt with copying the church status. Lavrenty decided to mark the high authority books like many other connoisseurs of church singing of those interpretations which were included in the art. His interpretations from the Heirmologion and book. Consequently, in this context deacon Luka the Collection of Lent sticherons became the pattern Ivanovich Tveritin is presented as a great authority. for the corresponding parts of the book. Probably, the His interpretations were of great value, he was fact that Luka Tveritin knew Leonty (who was also already a renowned connoisseur of church singing art. a renowned master of church singing art) resulted It is worth mentioning that Lavrenty gave us the full in Leonty’s appointment as a deacon of the Nikola name of deacon Luka with the surname-nickname — Yavlensky Church whereas Luka became a priest. Tveritin. Such nicknames were given to newcomers It can also account for the respectful behaviour. It is to mark their previous place of living (or birthplace). well known that Leonty served in the Moscow church Thus, in Moscow Luka (or his ancestor as Luka is not long and some years later left for the Yaroslavl’ usually called the Muscovite) could get a nickname monastery as monk Lavrenty. Tveritin marking his coming from Tver’. The above-mentioned book is, beyond any doubt, The neume text of the book has no “pomety” (re- of great importance. Luka Tveritin’s examples of the marks) which proves the information from the “Skaza- work of authorship can be met in different personal nie o zarembah” — that Luka Ivanovich Tveritin was chant books of that time. This book at first sight has no improving the notation being a priest, i.e. in the 1640-s. chants or their fragments with reference to this master. As far as the book contains copies from the master’ inter- However the masters themselves did not mark their pretations of the 1630-s this manuscript, unfortunately, interpretations: these remarks were usually added by does not present Luka’s theoretical searchings 4 . their pupils or by those who knew the interpretations 1 Pamva served as hegumen in the Vologda Pavlov mon- of different styles and who was interested in editing, astery in those very 1630-ies, when Luka Ivanov was a dea- comparing and correcting them (singing diaki, scribes, con [15, p. 179]. etc.). The study of the chants with Luka’s interpretation 2 Note also chants of “Usolsk” version (fol. 153v—154, is likely to discover new works of this master. 147). About Usolskaya school of chanting masters see.: 16, Master Luka Ivanovich Tveritin was living in the 21, 24. time when the reforms in the theory of the old-Russian 3 The scribe of the collection after the large section speci- chant music were about to happen. To a certain extent fies the number of completed notebooks himself: “There are he also took part in the improvement of the old nota- 8 notebooks in Heirmos” (fol. 62), etc. After Obikhod he noted and the cost of the work: “30 altyn (0,9 roubles) were tion system. He came into history as the creator of the taken for” (fol. 192v). ei Mikhailovich (since 1645). Consequently, the manuscript 4 The collection includes the rite of “Health bowls” and can be dated to the mid 40s — the first half of the 50s of the Mnogoletie (the wish of many years of life) to the Tsar Alex- 17th century.

98 Вестник ЮУрГУ. Серия «Социально-гуманитарные науки» Church singing art masters of the “reigning city N. P. Parfentjev of Moscow” in the 16th — 17th centuries mark system, as the author of interpretations and as a 9. Kanon prepodobnomu ottsu nashemu Dionisiu, arkhi- competent copyist of chant books. mandritu Sergievy Lavry, s prisovokupleniem Zhitiya ego The amount of singing works belonging to the [Canon and life of our father Dionysius, Archimandrite Ser- Moscow masters was extremely extensive. The fact is gius Lavra, Wonderworker of Radonezh, with the accession of his life description]. Moscow, 1855. that the major part of them was left anonymous. There 10. Khristophor. Kluch znamennoy, 1604 [Key znamen- are few manuscripts containing the information about ny, 1604] / publ. by M. Brazhnikov, G. Nikishov. Pamyatniki the creators or the place of creation. Besides the above- russkogo muzykal’nogo iskusstva [The monuments of Rus- mentioned masters one should also mention the sin sian musical art]. Moscow, 1983, issue 9. ging diaki of the patriarch’s choir. The most common 11. Kloss B.M. Nikonovskiy svod i russkie letopisi naming of chants, connecting them with the works of XVI—XVII vekov. [Nikon’s Chronicle and Russian chroni- the masters of capital, such as singers of patriarch’s cles of 16th — 17th centuries]. Moscow, 1980. chorus, occur more frequently. In the first half of 12. Knizhnye tsentry Drevney Rusi: Iosifo-Volokolamskiy 17th century manuscripts there are some chants in the monastyr’ [Book Centers of Old Russia: Joseph Volokolamsk Monastery]. Red. D.S. Likhachev. Leningrad, 1991. interpretation of the patriarch’s diaki: the many lines 13. Mansvetov I.D. Tserkovnyi Ustav (Tipik), ego obra- (polyphony) theotokion, the many lines (polyphony) zovanie i sud’ba v Grecheskoy i Russkoy tserkvi [Church Demesvenny style chanting of two sticherons and the Charter (Tipik), his education and fate in the Greek and Rus- patriarch’s Putevoy style chant [37—38; 50]. The col- sian churches]. Moscow, 1885 lection of the last quarter 17th century also contains the 14. Parfentjev N.P. About Activity of Feodor Krest’janin Patriarch Nikonovskaya (Patriarch Nikon’s) Cherubic — the Master of Musical-Written Art of XVI — the Begin- Hymn [55, fol. 130—132]. ning XVII Centuries. Journal of Siberian Federal University. There are more general names for the Moscow Humanities & Social Sciences, 2009, V.2 (3), p. 402—413. school interpretations. For example, the beginning 15. Parfentjev N.P. Drevnerusskoe pevcheskoe iskusstvo th v dukhovnoy kulture Rossijskogo gosudarstva XVI—XVII of 17 century collection of chants has some works vv.: Shkoly. Tsentry. Mastera. [Old Russian chant art in the of the “Moscow interpretation” [62, fol. 338, 342, intellectual culture of Russia in the 16th — 17th centuries. 345v, 395v, 413v]. Other manuscripts of the same pe- Schools. Centers. Masters]. Sverdlovsk, 1991, 234 p. riod mark some chants as “Moscow ones” [4; 51; 67, 16. Parfentjev N.P. O Stroganovskoy masterskoy knizh- fol. 150]. Such generalizations could appear in the no-rukopisnogo iskusstva XVI—XVII vekov [About Stro- collections created outside the capital. Even a greater ganov’ workshop book and manuscript art of 16th — 17th number of anonymous works were included in the centuries]. Vestnik Uzhno-Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo manuscripts created within Moscow and therefore did universiteta. Ser.: Sotsial’no-gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin not record the name of the obvious local (Moscow) of the South Ural State University. Series: Social Sciences and the Humanities], 2008, issue 10, p. 43—62. versions. 17. Parfentjev N.P. Professionalnye muzykanty Rossi- There are many facts indicative of masters’ rep- yskogo gosudarstva XVI—XVII vekov. Gosudarevy pevchie resenting the Moscow school creative activity. Some diaki i patriarshie pevchie diaki i podiaki [Professional Rus- of them, being outside of the school, have contributed sian musicians of the 16th—17th centuries. The Tsar’s singing to the high development of the theory and practice of diaki and the patriarch’s singing diaki and podiaki]. Chely- chanting art in the regional centres (cities, monaster- abinsk, 1991, 446 p. ies), gained fame throughout Russia. 18. Parfentjev N.P., Parfentjeva N.V. About Feodor Krestjanin’s creative activity in the 1598—1607 years. Vest- References nik Uzhno-Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: 1. Acty, sobrannye v bibliotecakh i arkhivakh Rossiyskoy Sotsial’no-gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin of the South Ural imperii Arkheograficheskoy Expeditsii Imperatorskoy State University. Series: Social Sciences and the Humani- Academii Nauk [Historical Acts Collected by the ties], 2015, v. 15, № 2, p. 60—70. Archaeographical Expedition of the Academy of Sciences 19. Parfentjev N.P., Parfentjeva N.V. Basic principles of in the Libraries and Archives of the Russian Empire]. St. copyright Creativity in the works Feodor Кrestjanin (d. ok. Petersburg, 1836, v.3. 1607) Vestnik Uzhno-Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo univer- 2. Alshits, D.N. Novyi document o ludyakh i prikazakh siteta. Ser.: Sotsial’no-gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin of the Oprichnogo dvora Ivana Groznogo posle 1572 goda [The South Ural State University. Series: Social Sciences and the New Document on People and Departments of the Oprichny Humanities], 2015, v. 15, № 1, p. 78— 91. Yard of Ivan the Terrible of 1572]. Istoricheskiy arkhiv. 20. Parfentjeva N.V. Metodologicheskie podkhody v [Historical archives]. Moscow; Leningrad, 1949, v. 4. izuchenii teoreticheskikh osnov tvorchestva vydayuschego- 3. Arseniy, ier. Opisanie slavyanskikh rukopise’ biblioteki sya moskovskogo raspevschika Feodora Krestjanina (um. Svyato-Troitskoy Sergievoy lavry [Description of the Holy оk. 1607) [Methodological approaches in the study of the Trinity Sergius Lavra library Slavic manuscripts]. Moscow, theoretical foundations of the outstanding Moscow raspe- 1878, v. 2. vschik (chanting master) Fedor Krestjanin’s creative ativity 4. BRAN [Library of Russian Academy of Sciences, St. (d. c. 1607)]. Vestnik Uzhno-Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo Petersburg]. № 32.16.18, fol. 116. universiteta. Ser.: Sotsial’no-gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin 5. Dopolneniya k actam istoricheskim, sobrannye i of the South Ural State University. Series: Social Sciences izdannye Arkheograficheskoy Komissiey Imperatorskoy and the Humanities], 2012, issue 18, p. 111—120. Academii Nauk [Additions to historical acts collected 21. Parfentjeva N.V., Parfentjev N.P. Avtorstvo v proizve- and published by the Archaeographical commission.]. St. deniyakh raspevschika Stroganovskoy shkoly Ivana (Isayi) Petersburg, 1846, v. 1. Lukoshrova (um. ok. 1621) [The authorship of the works of 6. GIM [State Historical Museum, Moscow]. Shukin. Stroganov School raspevschik Ivan (Isaya) Lukoshkov (d. №767, fol. 419. c. 1621)]. Vestnik Uzhno-Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo uni- 7. GIM. Sinod.-pev. № 1357, fol. 18—19. versiteta. Ser.: Sotsial’no-gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin of 8. GIM. Sinod.-pev. № 219, fol. 376—424. the South Ural State University. Series: Social Sciences and the Humanities], 2008, issue 11, p. 54—70.

2015, т. 15, № 3 99 Искусствоведение и культурология 22. Parfentjeva N.V., Parfentjev N.P. O deyatel’nosti 42. RGADA. F. 381. № 289, fol. 316. masterov Troitse-Sergievskogo monastyrya v oblas- 43. RGADA. F. 396. Inv. 2. №529 (1628—1629), fol. ti drevnerusskogo muzikalnogo iskusstva (na primere 27v. tvorchestva Logina Shishelova) [The activities of the Trin- 44. RGADA. F. 396. Inv. 2. №535 (1634—1635), fol. ity Sergius monastery masters in the ancient Russian art of 54. church music (on the example of Login Shishelov’s creative 45. RGADA. F. 396. Inv. 2. №536 (1640—1641), fol. ativity)]. Vestnik Uzhno-Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo uni- 93v. versiteta. Ser.: Sotsial’no-gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin of 46. RGADA. F. 396. Inv. 2. №537 (1641—1642), fol. the South Ural State University. Series: Social Sciences and 103. the Humanities], 2013, issue 1, p. 92—103. 47. RGADA. F. 396. Inv. 2. №538 (1645—1646), fol. 23. Parfentjeva N.V., Parfentjev N.P. Osvoenie repertuara 91v. masterami pevcheskoy shkoly Fedora Krestjanina na rubege 48. RGADA. F. 396. Inv. 2. №540 (1648—1650), fol. XVI—XVII vv. [Mastering the repertoire by masters of Fe- 84—189. dor Krestjanin’s chanting school at the turn of 16th — 17th 49. RGADA. F. 1192. Inv. 2. № 1, fol. 28—150. centuries]. Vestnik Uzhno-Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo 50. RGB [Russian State Library, Moscow]. F. 37. №364, universiteta. Ser.: Sotsial’no-gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin fol. 280—281. of the South Ural State University. Series: Social Sciences 51. RGB. F. 178. №766, fol. 352—352v. and the Humanities], 2012, issue 19, p. 83—90. 52. RGB. F. 210. №1. 24. Parfentjeva N.V., Parfentjev N.P. Stroganovskaya 53. RGB. F. 299. №212, fol. 173. shkola kak vydayuscheesya napravlenie v tserkovno-pe- 54. RGB. F. 304. №428, fol. 98—222v. vcheskom iskusstve Rossii XVI—XVII vv. [Stroganov 55. RGB. F. 379. №19, fol. 130—175v. School as a outstanding direction in the church-chanting art 56. RGB. F. 379. №29. of Russia 16th — 17th centuries]. Vestnik Ural’skogo otdele- 57. RIB [State Public Historical Library of Russia]. St. niya RAN: Nauka. Obshestvo. Chelovek [Bulletin of the Ural Petersburg, 1876, v. 3. Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Science. Soci- 58. RNB [Russian National Library, St. Petersburg]. Kir.- ety. The Man], 2013, № 2, p. 105—117. Bel. № 605/862. 25. RGADA [Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts, 59. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 612/869. Moscow]. F. 181. Inv. 8. №141, fol. 21—101. 60. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 617/874. 26. RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1573, fol. 161—365. 61. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 638/895, fol. 97v—98v. 27. RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1574, fol. 58—79v. 62. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 681/938, fol. 338—413v. 28. RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1577, fol. 1—1v. 63. RNB. Kir.-Bel. № 712/969, fol. 197—203v. 29. RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1578, fol. 1—1v. 64. RNB. Q.1.1101, fol. 201—202. 30. RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1579, fol. 1—8. 65. RNB. Sof. № 492. 31. RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1584, fol. 2—4v. 66. RNB. Solov. № 277/292. 32. RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1585, fol. 1—2. 67. RNB. Titov. № 4455, fol. 150—161. 33. RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1587, fol. 1—1v. 68. Zabelin I. E. Istoriya goroda Moskvy [History of the 34. RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1588, fol. 1. City of Moscow]. Moscow, 1905, part 1. 35. RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1589, fol. 1. 69. Zvereva S.G. Muzykal’nye chernoviki khora 36. RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1591, fol. 1. gosudarevikh pevchikh diakov nachala XVII v. [The 37. RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1604. beginning of the 17th century musical drafts of the 38. RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1608. sovereign’s choir singers]. Pamyatniki kultury. Novye 39. RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1714, fol. 3v. 40. RGADA. F. 188. Inv. 1. №1729, fol. 1—1v. otkrytiya, 1991. [Cultural heritage. New discoveries, 41. RGADA. F. 196. Inv. 1. №273, fol. 78—223 1991]. Moscow, 1997. Received May 28, 2015

Bulletin of the South Ural State University Series «Social Sciences and the Humanities» 2015, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 91—102 УДК 783(470.5) + 94(470.5) ББК Ч611.3 + Т3(2Р36)-7 + Щ313(2)

Мастера певческого дела в «царствующем граде» Москве XVI—XVII вв. Н. П. Парфентьев

Кроме широко известного распевщика Фёдора Крестьянина (его имя в источниках всег- да выделяется особо), прижизненное признание заслужили и другие мастера, связанные с церковно-певческим искусством Московской школы XVI—XVII вв. В статье основное вни- мание уделяется деятельности этих мастеров «второго плана» в период наивысшего развития авторского творчества. Ключевые слова: древнерусское церковно-певческое искусство, авторское творчество, государевы певчие дьяки, Фёдор Крестьянин, Иван Нос, дьякон Фома (Филарет), Логин Ши- шелов, Христофор, Лука Иванов.

100 Вестник ЮУрГУ. Серия «Социально-гуманитарные науки» Church singing art masters of the “reigning city N. P. Parfentjev of Moscow” in the 16th — 17th centuries Литература и источники 1. ААЭ. — СПб., 1836. — Т. 3. 2. Альшиц, Д. Н. Новый документ о людях и приказах Опричного двора Ивана Грозного после 1572 г. / Д. Н. Альшиц // Исторический архив. — М.; Л., 1949. — T. 4. 3. Арсений, иер. Описание славянских рукописей библиотеки Свято-Троицкой Сергиевой лавры / Арсений. — М., 1878. — Ч. 2. 4. БРАН. № 32.16.18. Л. 116. 5. ДАИ. — СПб., 1846. Т. 1. 6. ГИМ. Щукин. № 767. Л. 419. 7. ГИМ. Синод.-пев. № 1357. Л. 18—19. 8. ГИМ. Синод.-пев. № 219. Л. 376—424. 9. Канон и житие отцу нашему Дионисию, архимандриту Сергиевы Лавры, радонежскому чудотворцу, с присово- куплением жития его. — М., 1855. 10. Христофор. Ключ знаменной. 1604 / публ., перев. М. Бражникова и Г. Никишова // Памятники русского музыкаль- ного искусства. — Вып. 9. — М., 1983. 11. Клосс, Б. М. Никоновский свод и русские летописи XVI—XVII вв. / Б. М. Клосс — М. : Наука, 1980. 12. Книжные центры Древней Руси: Иосифо-Волоколамский монастырь как центр книжности / отв. ред. Д. С. Лихачев. — Л., 1991. 13. Мансветов, И. Д. Церковный Устав (Типик), его образование и судьба в Греческой и Русской церкви / И. Д. Мансветов. — М., 1885. 14. Parfentjev, N. P. About Activity of Feodor Krest’janin — the Master of Musical-Written Art of XVI — the Beginning XVII Centuries / N. P. Parfentjev // Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences. — 2009. — V. 2 (3). — P. 402—413. 15. Парфентьев, Н. П. Древнерусское певческое искусство в духовной культуре Российского государства XVI— XVII вв.: Школы. Центры. Мастера / Н. П. Парфентьев. — Свердловск : Урал. гос. ун-т, 1991. — 234 с. 16. Парфентьев, Н. П. О строгановской мастерской книжно-рукописного искусства XVI—XVII вв. / Н. П. Парфен- тьев // Вестник Южно-Уральского государственного университета. Сер.: Социально-гуманитарные науки. — 2008. — Вып. 10. — С. 43—62. 17. Парфентьев, Н. П. Профессиональные музыканты Российского государства XVI—XVII вв.: государевы певчие дьяки и патриаршие певчие дьяки и подьяки / Н. П. Парфентьев. — Челябинск, 1991. — 446 c. 18. Parfentjev, N. P. About Feodor Krestjanin’s creative activity in the 1598—1607 years. / N. P. Parfentjev, N. V. Par- fentjeva // Вестник Южно-Уральского государственного университета. Сер.: Социально-гуманитарные науки. — 2015. — Т. 15. — № 2. — С. 60—70. 19. Parfentjev, N. P. Basic principles of copyright Creativity in the works Feodor Кrestjanin (d. ok. 1607) / N. P. Parfentjev, N. V. Parfentjeva // Вестник Южно-Уральского государственного университета. Сер.: Социально-гуманитарные науки. — 2015. — Т. 15. — № 1. — С. 78— 91. 20. Парфентьева, Н. В. Методологические подходы в изучении теоретических основ творчества выдающегося мо- сковского распевщика Федора Крестьянина (ум. ок. 1607) / Н. В. Парфентьева // Вестник Южно-Уральского государ- ственного университета. Сер.: Социально-гуманитарные науки. — 2012. — Вып. 18. — С. 111—120. 21. Парфентьева, Н. В. Авторство в произведениях распевщика Строгановской школы Ивана (Исайи) Лукошкова (ум. ок. 1621 г.) / Н. В. Парфентьва, Н. П. Парфентьев // Вестник Южно-Уральского государственного университета. Сер.: Социально-гуманитарные науки. — 2008. — Вып. 11. — С. 54—70. 22. Парфентьева, Н. В. О деятельности мастеров Троице-Сергиевского монастыря в области древнерусского музы- кального искусства (на примере творчества Логина Шишелова) / Н. В. Парфентьева, Н. П. Парфентьев // Вестник Южно- Уральского государственного университета. Сер.: Социально-гуманитарные науки. — 2013. — Вып. 1. — С. 92—103. 23. Парфентьева, Н. В. Освоение репертуара мастерами певческой школы Федора Крестьянина на рубеже XVI—XVII вв. / Н. В. Парфентьева, Н. П. Парфентьев // Вестник Южно-Уральского государственного университета. Сер.: Социально- гуманитарные науки. — 2012. — Вып. 19. — С. 83—90. 24. Парфентьева, Н. В. Строгановская школа как выдающееся направление в церковно-певческом искусстве России XVI—XVII вв. / Н. В. Парфентьева, Н. П. Парфентьев // Вестник Уральского отделения РАН. Наука. Общество. Человек. — 2013. — № 2. — С. 105—117. 25. РГАДА. Ф. 181. Оп. 8. № 141. Л. 21—101. 26. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1573. Л. 161—365. 27. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1574. Л. 58—79 об. 28. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1577. Л. 1—1 об. 29. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1578. Л. 1—1 об. 30. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1579. Л. 1—8. 31. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1584. Л. 2—4 об. 32. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1585. Л. 1—2. 33. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1587. Л. 1—1 об. 34. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1588. Л. 1. 35. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1589. Л. 1. 36. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1591. Л. 1. 37. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1604. 38. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1608. 39. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1714. Л. 3 об. 40. РГАДА. Ф. 188. Оп. 1. № 1729. Л. 1—1 об. 41. РГАДА. Ф. 196. Оп. 1. № 273. Л. 78—223. 42. РГАДА. Ф. 381. Оп. 1. № 289. Л. 316. 43. РГАДА. Ф. 396. Оп. 2. № 529 (1628—1629). Л. 27 об. 44. РГАДА. Ф. 396. Оп. 2. № 535 (1634—1635). Л. 54.

2015, т. 15, № 3 101 Искусствоведение и культурология 45. РГАДА. Ф. 396. Оп. 2. № 536 (1640—1641). Л. 93 об. 46. РГАДА. Ф. 396. Оп. 2. № 537 (1641—1642). Л. 103. 47. РГАДА. Ф. 396. Оп. 2. № 538 (1645—1646). Л. 91 об. 48. РГАДА. Ф. 396. Оп. 2. № 540 (1648—1650). Л. 84—189. 49. РГАДА. Ф. 1192. Оп. 2. № 1. Л. 28—150. 50. РГБ. Ф. 37. № 364. Л. 280—281. 51. РГБ. Ф. 178. № 766. Л. 352—352 об. 52. РГБ. Ф. 210. № 1. 53. РГБ. Ф. 299. № 212. Л. 173. 54. РГБ. Ф. 304. № 428. Л. 98—222 об. 55. РГБ. Ф. 379. № 19. Л. 130—175 об. 56. РГБ. Ф. 379. № 29. 57. РИБ. — СПб, 1876. — T. 3. 58. РНБ. Кир.-Бел. № 605/862. 59. РНБ. Кир.-Бел. № 612/869. 60. РНБ. Кир.-Бел. № 617/874. 61. РНБ. Кир.-Бел. № 638/895. Л. 97 об.—98 об. 62. РНБ. Кир.-Бел. № 681/938. Л. 338—413 об. 63. РНБ. Кир.-Бел. № 712/969. Л. 197—203 об. 64. РНБ. Q.1.1101. Л.201—202. 65. РНБ. Соф. № 492. 66. РНБ. Солов. № 277/292. 67. РНБ. Титов. № 4455. Л. 150—161. 68. Забелин И. Е. История города Москвы / И. Е. Забелин. — Ч. 1. — М., 1905. 69. Зверева, С. Г. Музыкальны черновики хора государевых певчих дьяков начала XVI в. / С. Г. Зверева // Памятники культуры. Новые открытия. Ежегодник, 1991. — М., 1997.

Парфентьев Николай Павлович, заведующий кафедрой искусствоведения и культурологии, Южно- Уральский государственный университет (г. Челябинск), доктор исторических наук, доктор искусствоведе- ния, профессор, заслуженный деятель науки Российской Федерации. Автор более 100 научных трудов, в том числе 6 монографий, в области истории духовной культуры России и древнерусского искусства. E-mail: [email protected]

Поступила в редакцию 28 мая 2015 г.

102 Вестник ЮУрГУ. Серия «Социально-гуманитарные науки»